• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

oil-Are we screwed?

ashurbanipal said:
No, I disagree that we were or are trying to fix the problem. I also disagree that we've done anything, even incidentally, to make things better there. I think we try to advertise to the American public and the world at large that we make things better wherever we go, while the truth is entirely the opposite. I think that we're most likely in Iraq to establish a forward military presence ahead of peak oil. We're also attempting to demonstrate to the world that we're prepared to go to war to secure foreign supplies of energy.
[...]
There's no way to fix the problem now; we're in zugzwang. Anything we do will only make things worse, including doing nothing at all. The least amount of evil would be brought about by our immediate withdrawal, followed by a near-total re-population of our own government.

Saddam or elected government, simple choice, whats wrong with the one we made?

ashurbanipal said:
No, it's not OK for anyone to do that.

Then lets stop it from happening!

ashurbanipal said:
Read up on the recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, East Timor, and Somalia. No one did or is doing anything to try to "fix" those problems. Read up on the ongoing civil war in the DRC, the brutality of the current government of Myanmar, The Chinese actions in Tibet and against the Falun Gong, the ongoing and barbaric predations of the Indian and Pakistani armies on the local populations of Kashmir and the Hindu Kush, etc. No one is trying to "fix" those problems.

Then lets fix them! The war in Iraq may have been to open up an oil market, but it got it done. There may have been bad intentions, but I agree with the results. Liberals won't do it, republicans will only do it for gain, you see I only have one option.

ashurbanipal said:
Prior to this, you were saying that the average Iraqi was more ignorant of politics than the average American. I was showing why this would be a pretty difficult case to prove.

When did I say this?

ashurbanipal said:
1) I've never called you conceited, or thought that.

Will that stop me from saying that I'm not? :D

ashurbanipal said:
2) The next question to ask, IMO, would be whether extreme/ mainstream really has anything to do with it, or whether it's some other variable that's at work. I like to think that what makes a belief or opinion right or wrong has less to do with where it falls on the political spectrum, and more to do with how well it is supported by evidence and sound argumentation. Doesn't that seem entirely reasonable? We might observe that extreme opinions often are based on flawed reasoning. But they need not be; I think that the most sound reasoning based on all the available evidence leads to a much more liberal stance than what is currently mainstream in America.

And many liberal reasonings can be very valid, and it is true that I agree with many of these. When I say "extreme" I don't mean just liberal, I mean conservative as well.

ashurbanipal said:
See above--I think this is incorrect.

Both extreme partisan views... I'm still working on it.

ashurbanipal said:
But this is no defense of the current administration. Nor is it necessarily an indictment of anyone in particular; I think the war can be criticized on its own grounds, regardless of who started it.

I agree.

ashurbanipal said:
I didn't think so.

Then I'm easily bored :D

ashurbanipal said:
No, that doesn't mean I won. What does mean I won is that I had the superior position.

The same :p
 
Saddam or elected government, simple choice, whats wrong with the one we made?

1) Who were we to make it?
2) Was that really what we were up to? I think not.
3) In any event, that elected government turns out to be very bad for us.
4) It's also impotent thanks to our continued occupation.
5) Pursuant to 4), it's also an advertising gimick. We didn't set up a democracy in Afghanistan; we only did so in Iraq because we needed some public relations currency.

Then lets fix them! The war in Iraq may have been to open up an oil market, but it got it done.

Got what done? Got a bunch of people tortured and imprisoned? Got a bunch of children blown up? Got the largest terrorist force the world has ever seen up and running? Got most of the Muslim world mad at us? Got a couple thousand American soldiers killed? Got several thousand more critically wounded? Got 2 trillion dollars that we couldn't afford away from the American people and into the hands of defense contractors, oil companies, and other such entities? Got many thousands--perhaps well over a hundred thousand--Iraqi civilians killed?

The only "good" thing to come from our occupation is that we shut down the Iraqi oil bourse. Now Iran is going to follow suit and start its own bourse.

There may have been bad intentions, but I agree with the results.

You've got to be kidding. What results do you agree with?

When did I say this?{i.e. that the average Iraqi was more ignorant than the average American politically}

YOu wrote:

Demosthenes said:
But to much less an extent compared to those in the former Iraqi government.

in response to me saying:

Ashurbanipal said:
I agree there's a difference--the primary difference being that American citizens are more or less ignorant of what their government does day in, day out.

I assumed you meant that those who were subject to the former Iraqi government were more ignorant than the average American citizen. The only other way I could see to make sense of that reply would be if you meant that the people in the former Iraqi government were more ignorant than the average American citizen, which wouldn't make much sense.

And many liberal reasonings can be very valid, and it is true that I agree with many of these. When I say "extreme" I don't mean just liberal, I mean conservative as well.

I understood that. I'm saying, though, that extremity is obviously a bad metric. It may have a rough correlation to the array of incorrect opinions. But this is only incidental, and may, in unpredictable times and places have nothing to do with how right or wrong a position is. What does have something to do with it, though, is the amount of reason that goes into the formulation of a particular position.

For instance, right now I believe two positional complexes are correct that would be taken to be extreme: First, that we need to radically curb our use of energy and provide for the freeing of capital to retool our infrastructure, and second, we need to radically alter our relationship to our environment. I base these opinions on valid scientific research and correct reasoning from the results of that research.
 
ashurbanipal said:
1) Who were we to make it? [A new government in Iraq]

I suppose it's a question of your personal ideology, I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I feel (and many people do) that a nation with an oppressive government should be dismantled and a new one created. I would expect the same from the rest of the world if the US government all of a sudden became massively corrupt.

ashurbanipal said:
2) Was that really what we were up to? I think not.

As I've said, I may not agree with what may or may not have been the intentions. There is the clear possibility that Iraq was invaded to open up an oil market, maybe oil companies were even offering kick backs. It may be likely, even probable, but we must also remember that we won't know for certain for years.

The point is, I agree with the results, but I don't delude myself into believing that dismantling a corrupt government was the only objective of our government. But I also don't delude myself into believing that Saddam was a good man. Choose the lessor of two evils, the president looking for self gain, or the torturing murderous dictator oppressing a people?

ashurbanipal said:
3) In any event, that elected government turns out to be very bad for us.

And? What does it matter whether the government likes us? If we give them a democratic government, and they use it, keep it, and in the future defend it, then I'm a happy guy.

ashurbanipal said:
5) Pursuant to 4), it's also an advertising gimick. We didn't set up a democracy in Afghanistan; we only did so in Iraq because we needed some public relations currency.

The Coalition did help set up a government, but it took longer in Afghanistan because of the lack of much of a discernible government to work off of. Iraq already had government, no matter how corrupt it served as a basis for the current government. Afghanis voted for the first time in 2004 didn't they?

ashurbanipal said:
Got what done? Got a bunch of people tortured and imprisoned? Got a bunch of children blown up? Got the largest terrorist force the world has ever seen up and running? Got most of the Muslim world mad at us? Got a couple thousand American soldiers killed? Got several thousand more critically wounded? Got 2 trillion dollars that we couldn't afford away from the American people and into the hands of defense contractors, oil companies, and other such entities? Got many thousands--perhaps well over a hundred thousand--Iraqi civilians killed?

The only "good" thing to come from our occupation is that we shut down the Iraqi oil bourse. Now Iran is going to follow suit and start its own bourse.

The estimates from the most liberal of sources from a year ago were 100,000, but since have changed to more realistic estimates. The most liberal being in the 50,000's, and the probably near 35,000. In contrast to 400,000 directly confirmed confirmed from actual remains in mass graves, and estimates that range to just under a million from the actions of the former Iraqi government.

They destroyed a corrupt government, and they should destroy some more.

ashurbanipal said:
You've got to be kidding. What results do you agree with?

Which do you not agree with? It's a country that just had a radical change in government, and had previously been government by a violently oppressive regime, what can you expect only months after the new government is set up?

When did I say this?{i.e. that the average Iraqi was more ignorant than the average American politically}

You wrote:
But to much less an extent compared to those in the former Iraqi government.

in response to me saying:
I agree there's a difference--the primary difference being that American citizens are more or less ignorant of what their government does day in, day out.

I assumed you meant that those who were subject to the former Iraqi government were more ignorant than the average American citizen. The only other way I could see to make sense of that reply would be if you meant that the people in the former Iraqi government were more ignorant than the average American citizen, which wouldn't make much sense.

I meant that the US government practices torture and murder to a much less extent that the former Iraqi government did.
 
I suppose it's a question of your personal ideology, I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I feel (and many people do) that a nation with an oppressive government should be dismantled and a new one created.

Yes, that's what should happen, but in actual point of fact, that's not what we did, and our actions show that we never intended to do that.

I would expect the same from the rest of the world if the US government all of a sudden became massively corrupt.

Too late.

As I've said, I may not agree with what may or may not have been the intentions. There is the clear possibility that Iraq was invaded to open up an oil market, maybe oil companies were even offering kick backs. It may be likely, even probable, but we must also remember that we won't know for certain for years.

Iraq was invaded (probably) because they were selling oil for Euros instead of dollars. Right now, and ever since the Bretton Woods arrangement in 1947, oil and other commodities worldwide are traded primarily in dollars. It's not that other currencies can't be used, it's just that they're typically not--the IMF is established in dollars so it's inconvenient to use other currencies. This is enormously advantageous for us because other countries, in order to secure oil, gold, and a variety of other commodities have to buy dollars from us--essentially, they finance the United States for the priviledge of using dollars. Iraq was undermining that arrangement, and Iran is about to start.

The point is, I agree with the results, but I don't delude myself into believing that dismantling a corrupt government was the only objective of our government. But I also don't delude myself into believing that Saddam was a good man. Choose the lessor of two evils, the president looking for self gain, or the torturing murderous dictator oppressing a people?

If that were all there was to it, I'd agree with you. But that's not all there was, or is, to it.

And? What does it matter whether the government likes us? If we give them a democratic government, and they use it, keep it, and in the future defend it, then I'm a happy guy.

In a perfect world I'd agree, but as it is, our actions there have severely swayed Muslim opinion when it comes to the United States. So not only did we commit horrible evils, this is something that the American people will be paying the price for in the future. The irony is that all that talk about a smoking gun qua mushroom cloud was patently false prior to the invasion; our actions have virtually ensured it will be reality. The point was that we've sown the seeds for more violence and destruction, future conflicts in which more innocent civilians will perish.

The Coalition did help set up a government, but it took longer in Afghanistan because of the lack of much of a discernible government to work off of.

The elected Afgani officials have little power in actual point of fact; the warlords are the ones in charge. And that's how we want it.

Iraq already had government, no matter how corrupt it served as a basis for the current government.

We did hire some of Saddam's folks back in (oddly), but I'm not sure why it would be more difficult a thing to do to design a government in Afganistan than Iraq.

Afghanis voted for the first time in 2004 didn't they?

They may well have, but it didn't do them much good. What did do them some good was our letting the Northern Alliance take over.

The estimates from the most liberal of sources from a year ago were 100,000, but since have changed to more realistic estimates. The most liberal being in the 50,000's, and the probably near 35,000. In contrast to 400,000 directly confirmed confirmed from actual remains in mass graves, and estimates that range to just under a million from the actions of the former Iraqi government.

Where do you get your figures? It appears to me that these statements are incorrect. See:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html

http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=810

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg05091.html

http://electroniciraq.net/news/2006.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012905K.shtml


http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

http://www.mykeru.com/bodycount.html

Of course, no one knows how many civilians were killed as a result of our invasion. However, the 100,000 figure was a conservative estimate by the British Medical Journal The Lancet based on tried and accepted statistical methodology. They used orthodox statistical analysis to determine their number, and it's based on their most conservative estimates--IIRC they actually excluded data gathered from Faluja from their results because it would have trebled their number to include it.

The methods they used are the accepted methods to determine deaths from epidemic or in a war. The same methods have been used and supported by our government many times in the past. But despite its statistical soundness, and seemingly because it shows that we've done something horrible, it is criticized by the right. As you may have seen in the last link, even if the more conservative numbers are used, it's just mind boggling. However, I think the Lancet number will turn out to be pretty solid.

But what's more interesting is that the 400,000 killed by Sadam is still floated from time to time. Blair was the one who started that, and later (as you will read above), he had to retract that figure. In fact, we've found about 5000 bodies in Iraq.

But I think the actual number in mass graves is probably much larger than that--we haven't really excavated all the graves and we seem to have no plans to (one wonders why). I wouldn' doubt, say, 150,000 people. The questions are, who are they, who put them there, and why. A couple sources of the bodies that don't implicate Saddam in a genocide would be:

1) The Iraq/ Iran war produced many thousands dead on Iraqi soil.
2) After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, we encouraged a Shiite uprising that we did not support. Saddam killed those rebels--there were something like 30,000 of them or so.
3) People killed during our recent invasion.

I have no doubt that some of the people in the mass graves are people that Saddam's government rounded up and summarily executed. I also have no doubt that the toddlers and children that show a single bullet wound to the back of the skull were executed by Saddam's forces. And this is, of course, despicable, and there's no question it should not have happened.

But we must be careful in allowing our emotions to get the better of us. It seems a worthy question to ask whether we've done any better. After seeing the films of our actions, after having read the interviews with soliders struggling with what they've done, and after having talked to soldiers who have returned from there, I have to say I believe we have not. And that is shameful.

Which do you not agree with? It's a country that just had a radical change in government, and had previously been government by a violently oppressive regime, what can you expect only months after the new government is set up?

Again, it's just not that simple. The government being toppled is the least significant development there. The form of a government is irrelevant when compared with the conditions it generates. Even those who argue that democracy is the best form of government don't do so on conventional grounds--the contention is that democracy actually does something good for people. But in Iraq, at least so far, nothing good has been done in the face of such catastrophic evil that I would be hard pressed to find a single argument to support our actions there.

I meant that the US government practices torture and murder to a much less extent that the former Iraqi government did.

I don't think that's known yet. I suspect, but cannot prove, that if all the facts were known we'd discover that Saddam's government wasn't as bad as we've been led to believe, and that the American government is far worse than we'd like to imagine.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Yes, that's what should happen, but in actual point of fact, that's not what we did, and our actions show that we never intended to do that.

That is in fact what we accomplished regardless of our evil intentions (real or not).

ashurbanipal said:

So, we have to say Saddam was a good guy to discredit Bush? Am I the only person who thinks that's a bad idea?

ashurbanipal said:
Iraq was invaded (probably) because they were selling oil for Euros instead of dollars. Right now, and ever since the Bretton Woods arrangement in 1947, oil and other commodities worldwide are traded primarily in dollars. It's not that other currencies can't be used, it's just that they're typically not--the IMF is established in dollars so it's inconvenient to use other currencies. This is enormously advantageous for us because other countries, in order to secure oil, gold, and a variety of other commodities have to buy dollars from us--essentially, they finance the United States for the priviledge of using dollars. Iraq was undermining that arrangement, and Iran is about to start.

If a corporation helps poor hungry children for good PR then I think it's good. Just like the war in Iraq, if they did it for oil we still took down a ruthless dictator. Just because they had selfish intentions doesn't mean that the result wasn't positive.

So what, both sides are evil. Chose the lessor, the murderer or the liar? You would be a damn fool to choose the murderer.

ashurbanipal said:
If that were all there was to it, I'd agree with you. But that's not all there was, or is, to it.

What else is to it? You think that anyone in a position of power is a great example of morality? You think that Saddam didn't assassinated hundreds of political opponents to come to power? You don't think that he oppressed millions and was responsible for nearly a million people's deaths? And all this you think is not as bad as Bush opening up an oil market?

The ambitious murderer is dangerous, but the deluded liar who thinks he's moral I can use.

ashurbanipal said:
In a perfect world I'd agree, but as it is, our actions there have severely swayed Muslim opinion when it comes to the United States. So not only did we commit horrible evils, this is something that the American people will be paying the price for in the future. The irony is that all that talk about a smoking gun qua mushroom cloud was patently false prior to the invasion; our actions have virtually ensured it will be reality. The point was that we've sown the seeds for more violence and destruction, future conflicts in which more innocent civilians will perish.

First of all, the Muslim "hate" is probably at least slightly over exaggerated.

Second, Muslims can hate me if they want. If that's all it takes for them to have a democracy then then happy day.

ashurbanipal said:
We did hire some of Saddam's folks back in (oddly), but I'm not sure why it would be more difficult a thing to do to design a government in Afganistan than Iraq.

Because they had no real government in Afghanistan for years.

ashurbanipal said:
They may well have, but it didn't do them much good. What did do them some good was our letting the Northern Alliance take over.

We urged the North Alliance to wait for everyone else to take the capital together. But they went anyway, we had but two options: let it go, or attack the North Alliance.

ashurbanipal said:
Where do you get your figures? It appears to me that these statements are incorrect. See:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...263830,00.html

http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modul...icle&sid= 810

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg05091.html

http://electroniciraq.net/news/2006.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012905K.shtml


http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

http://www.mykeru.com/bodycount.html

Of course, no one knows how many civilians were killed as a result of our invasion. However, the 100,000 figure was a conservative estimate by the British Medical Journal The Lancet based on tried and accepted statistical methodology. They used orthodox statistical analysis to determine their number, and it's based on their most conservative estimates--IIRC they actually excluded data gathered from Faluja from their results because it would have trebled their number to include it.

The methods they used are the accepted methods to determine deaths from epidemic or in a war. The same methods have been used and supported by our government many times in the past. But despite its statistical soundness, and seemingly because it shows that we've done something horrible, it is criticized by the right. As you may have seen in the last link, even if the more conservative numbers are used, it's just mind boggling. However, I think the Lancet number will turn out to be pretty solid.

Truly, but there were only 28,287 to 31,891 documented deaths.

But what's more interesting is that the 400,000 killed by Sadam is still floated from time to time. Blair was the one who started that, and later (as you will read above), he had to retract that figure. In fact, we've found about 5000 bodies in Iraq.

But I think the actual number in mass graves is probably much larger than that--we haven't really excavated all the graves and we seem to have no plans to (one wonders why). I wouldn' doubt, say, 150,000 people. The questions are, who are they, who put them there, and why. A couple sources of the bodies that don't implicate Saddam in a genocide would be:

1) The Iraq/ Iran war produced many thousands dead on Iraqi soil.
2) After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, we encouraged a Shiite uprising that we did not support. Saddam killed those rebels--there were something like 30,000 of them or so.
3) People killed during our recent invasion.

I have no doubt that some of the people in the mass graves are people that Saddam's government rounded up and summarily executed. I also have no doubt that the toddlers and children that show a single bullet wound to the back of the skull were executed by Saddam's forces. And this is, of course, despicable, and there's no question it should not have happened.

But we must be careful in allowing our emotions to get the better of us. It seems a worthy question to ask whether we've done any better. After seeing the films of our actions, after having read the interviews with soliders struggling with what they've done, and after having talked to soldiers who have returned from there, I have to say I believe we have not. And that is shameful.

"To date, 260 mass graves have been found in Iraq with more than 400,000 bodies buried in them." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam

Deaths Saddam Responsible for:
Documented apx 400,000
Estimate of actual deaths apx 1,000,000

Deaths US Responsible for:
Documented apx 30,000
Estimate of actual deaths apx 100,000

Lessor of the two?
ashurbanipal said:
I don't think that's known yet. I suspect, but cannot prove, that if all the facts were known we'd discover that Saddam's government wasn't as bad as we've been led to believe, and that the American government is far worse than we'd like to imagine.

I guess we'll see.
 
Last edited:
That is in fact what we accomplished regardless of our evil intentions (real or not).

And we will find that, in accomplishing it, we have brought only more bloodshed to the world, and nothing good at all.

So, we have to say Saddam was a good guy to discredit Bush? Am I the only person who thinks that's a bad idea?

I'm not sure I follow you. I don't think Saddam was a good guy, I just don't think he was as bad as many Americans believe. I think he committed murder and is guilty of war crimes, just not on the level widely believed in this country. I think there's quite enough evidence to discredit Bush on his own, leaving Saddam completely out of it. That he's spun a picture of Saddam that isn't accurate does bear on the issue, though.

If a corporation helps poor hungry children for good PR then I think it's good. Just like the war in Iraq, if they did it for oil we still took down a ruthless dictator. Just because they had selfish intentions doesn't mean that the result wasn't positive.

The result is not positive. Democracy is not good in itself, it's good for what it does. When a democracy becomes corrupt or war-hungry, it's no better than when a dictatorship does so. Consider that, for instance, Nazi Germany started out as a democracy. The Nazis came to power because they were voted into power. Read William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," which is the definitive work on the subject, for details. I had to read it in fits and starts as it just made me so mad from time to time (I don't really like Hitler and his gang at all), but it's a good book and I think everyone of any intelligence ought to study it.

So what, both sides are evil. Chose the lessor, the murderer or the liar? You would be a damn fool to choose the murderer.

Both sides lied and murdered; I don't see any evidence to suggest that one did so in some greater magnitutde than the other.

What else is to it? You think that anyone in a position of power is a great example of morality? You think that Saddam didn't assassinated hundreds of political opponents to come to power? You don't think that he oppressed millions and was responsible for nearly a million people's deaths?

I dispute that he was responsible for so many deaths. I don't think there's any evidence for it. Even the Iran-Iraq war was a U.S. sponsored proxy war.

And all this you think is not as bad as Bush opening up an oil market?

This is also a serious gloss-over. That's far from all we did, which was to bring a lot of death and destruction through 2 wars and economic sanctions that were far from necesssary. We were also cheerleaders for Saddam's 2 wars.

The ambitious murderer is dangerous, but the deluded liar who thinks he's moral I can use.

The proposition I am asserting, and for which I have adduced quite a lot of evidence that you've ignored, is that both GWB and SH were and are ambitious murderers.

First of all, the Muslim "hate" is probably at least slightly over exaggerated.

Second, Muslims can hate me if they want. If that's all it takes for them to have a democracy then then happy day.

It may be overexaggerated. At this point, I just have to ask why you think Democracy is a good thing in itself? When we were discussing forms of government, your defense of democracy was based on the idea that it does good things. But now you seem to want to say that it's good regardless of what things it does. I disagree; I'd like some discussion of it.

Truly, but there were only 28,287 to 31,891 documented deaths.

In the same way, there are only a few thousand documented deaths caused by Saddam Hussein. But we agree that the number is likely higher, for pretty good reason.

The Iraqi Body Count project relies on news reports of deaths. It should be obvious even to the most moronic of dolts that this will seriously undercount the actual number of people killed. Journalists are clearly not present for every battle fought, every bomb dropped, every bullet or missile fired.

"To date, 260 mass graves have been found in Iraq with more than 400,000 bodies buried in them." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam

Deaths Saddam Responsible for:
Documented apx 400,000
Estimate of actual deaths apx 1,000,000

Deaths US Responsible for:
Documented apx 30,000
Estimate of actual deaths apx 100,000

Lessor of the two?

If you had actually read any of those links I posted, you'd know what I'm going to say next:

The 400,000 number is not a documented number. It was a highly inflated and unreliable number fed to Tony Blair, which was then carried across the world in the mainstream press. The very next week Mr. Blair was forced to say that the number was not correct, and that it was more like 5000 documented bodies. If we just take the number of gravesites times the average number of bodies buried in them (about 200), we end up with an estimate of roughly 52,000. Part of the problem is that we only guess that those 260 sites are grave sites. Many of them will apparently never be dug up (one wonders why).

You do know that Wikipedia is not always reliable; anyone can write a Wiki? While I don't want to say that it's a totally unreliable source, I would assert that when it makes a claim known to be false, that particular article is clearly suspect. So unless you've got some source that legitimately over-rides the one I posted that debunked the 400,000 number, I just don't buy it. And neither should anyone else.

If they had discovered new mass graves and had dug them all up and actually found that many bodies, I'll accept that number. I'd even believe it if they found and verified thousands more grave sites without digging them up. But this is an issue I follow somewhat closely--I don't think any of that obtains.

Here, incidentally, is a good article I came across that discusses what the various body counts actually mean:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6565

I would believe possibly as many as 200,000 people were killed by Saddam, if you include all the uprisings crushed and collateral damage that he caused. But quelling an uprising would seem to be partially justified, and collateral damage can be called into question depending on how it was done. If he caused collateral damage in the same way we do, it certainly ought to count against him.

I also believe that, taking 100,000 as a conservative estimate as of over a year ago, our actual body count is by now considerably higher.

In any case, both body counts are within the same level of magnitude. There is an obvious difference between killing 150,000 and 200,000 people to the extra 50,000 victims themselves. But is there so much difference when we consider the guilt of the murderers? I don't think so.
 
ashurbanipal said:
And we will find that, in accomplishing it, we have brought only more bloodshed to the world, and nothing good at all.

I'd have to disagree.

I'm not sure I follow you. I don't think Saddam was a good guy, I just don't think he was as bad as many Americans believe. I think he committed murder and is guilty of war crimes, just not on the level widely believed in this country. I think there's quite enough evidence to discredit Bush on his own, leaving Saddam completely out of it. That he's spun a picture of Saddam that isn't accurate does bear on the issue, though.

If Saddam is guilty then why would you have him stay in power?

ashurbanipal said:
The result is not positive. Democracy is not good in itself, it's good for what it does. When a democracy becomes corrupt or war-hungry, it's no better than when a dictatorship does so. Consider that, for instance, Nazi Germany started out as a democracy. The Nazis came to power because they were voted into power. Read William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," which is the definitive work on the subject, for details. I had to read it in fits and starts as it just made me so mad from time to time (I don't really like Hitler and his gang at all), but it's a good book and I think everyone of any intelligence ought to study it.

Democracies don't have to be perfect to be positive. Democracies just happen to be better than any other form of government, and in this case much better than a corrupt dictatorship.

As you have shown, it's when countries move away democracy to fascism or dictatorships, that is when they get screwed.

ashurbanipal said:
Both sides lied and murdered; I don't see any evidence to suggest that one did so in some greater magnitude than the other.

Only a strong partisan hate of the right would make someone think that Saddam is the same as our government. There are two groups of partisan idiots, those who follow blindly, and those who are only guided by partisan hate towards the other side, ignoring both truth and reason.

ashurbanipal said:
I dispute that he was responsible for so many deaths. I don't think there's any evidence for it. Even the Iran-Iraq war was a U.S. sponsored proxy war.

Does our government do this? http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/2006/01/alert_saddams_c.html

Saddam tries to kill the prime minister of Iraq. And later was a higher ranking member of the Ba'ath party who overthrow the current government.

In 1979 he pushed the president of Iraq out of power, took the presidency, called a meeting of his party and had all of his political opponents killed by firing squad.

The Iraqi "Department of General Intelligence" was known for it's torture and assassinations, the "People's Army" worked to "eliminate" groups opposing Saddam.

In 1982 an assassination attempt was made against Saddam from the town on Dujail. Saddam sent forces to attack the town, 137 were killed on the spot execution style, including children. 1,500 were imprisoned and possibly tortured. A quarter of a million (250,000) of their farmland was utterly destroyed, their livelihood.

Someone attacked Halabja with nerve gas.

Does our government do things like this?

ashurbanipal said:
The proposition I am asserting, and for which I have adduced quite a lot of evidence that you've ignored, is that both GWB and SH were and are ambitious murderers.

Like Cindy Sheehan support of Hugo Chávez, the leader of Venezuela simply because of his opposition to the US government. Never mind his support for Castro, nor the prison sentence you receive for any government criticism in the press.

She is so blinded by the partisan hate for Bush that she'll ally herself with a greater evil. Like saying Saddam wasn't so bad to discredit Bush? Allying with the devil to expose the liar. Good luck.

ashurbanipal said:
It may be overexaggerated. At this point, I just have to ask why you think Democracy is a good thing in itself? When we were discussing forms of government, your defense of democracy was based on the idea that it does good things. But now you seem to want to say that it's good regardless of what things it does. I disagree; I'd like some discussion of it.

Is democracy good within itself? It tends to be good, or at least better than other governments. There are things in place to protect the good of the people in a democracy, a Constitution, three apposing branches, and frequent elections. Not to mention that it's the governments that move from democracy always (at least in the past) become tyrannical.

In the same way, there are only a few thousand documented deaths caused by Saddam Hussein. But we agree that the number is likely higher, for pretty good reason.

The Iraqi Body Count project relies on news reports of deaths. It should be obvious even to the most moronic of dolts that this will seriously undercount the actual number of people killed. Journalists are clearly not present for every battle fought, every bomb dropped, every bullet or missile fired.

Then it would also be obvious to these moronic dolts that if we were not in the country it would be hard to count the deaths resulting from the former Iraqi government. So these moronic dolts can see how there can be 5,000 actual found bodies, evidence confirming 400,000 deaths, and estimates at nearly a million deaths caused by the former Iraqi government.
 
If Saddam is guilty then why would you have him stay in power?

I wouldn't. But I wouldn't remove him the way we did, especially given the consequences, I certainly wouldn't have started with him, and I wouldn't have what's replaced him (or the people that brought this about) remain in power either.

Democracies don't have to be perfect to be positive. Democracies just happen to be better than any other form of government, and in this case much better than a corrupt dictatorship.

So why is a corrupt democracy better than a corrupt dictatorship?

As you have shown, it's when countries move away democracy to fascism or dictatorships, that is when they get screwed.

This ignores that democracies can give birth to dictatorships. So if that's the case, it seems to me that democracy is not necessarily any better than other forms of government. Your point has been that in actual point of fact, democracy is usually better than a totalitarianism. But in this instance, because the evidence is so overwhelming that in this instance it isn't, you need to argue that there's some inherent and ineffable good in a democracy. I doubt very much that there is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ashurbanipal
Both sides lied and murdered; I don't see any evidence to suggest that one did so in some greater magnitude than the other.


Only a strong partisan hate of the right would make someone think that Saddam is the same as our government.

I take this statement to really mean: "Only a strong and unreasonable partisan hate of the right would make someone think that our government is no better than the one run by Saddam Hussein." Feel free to correct that assumption, but if that's what you mean, then I can prove it false, and rigorously so, if you'll answer the below question honestly:

Suppose (hypothetically) that Bush gets some air time to address the nation tonight. Everyone tunes in to listen to what he's got to say, and here it is:

"My fellow Americans, good evening. Tonight, I have some grave news to share with you. My patience with Europe has run out. As we speak, all of Europe is burning as our nuclear warheads explode across the entire continent. We've got satellite images of city after city being incinerated in unexpected glowing fireballs. I'm not even going to debate with anyone whether it was the right thing to do. I'm the president, and if I decide to murder a billion people, it's my decision.

Additionally, I would like to reveal that I have ordered our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to indiscriminately kill all native inhabitants of those countries without pity or remorse. Again, the matter isn't open to debate; I don't care what anyone thinks of my actions.

Finally, I have decided to imprison everyone in this country that disagrees with me. So, as we speak, all registered democrats and other known liberals are being rounded up and taken to secure facilities which we have been building for the last four years. Anyone who resists will be shot. Thank you, and good evening."

Now, I realize this is an unrealistic scenario (well, one hopes...). But suppose that this really did happen, and then you looked outside and indeed saw national guard troops gathering people up and brutally shooting anyone who resists. You get on the internet and see Europe completely ablaze on Nasa's satellite imaging website. On CNN, Anderson Cooper is talking about how our troops seem to be going crazy, just killing everyone in sight. If that really did happen, what would you think of Bush? what would you think of our government?


Of course not. Our government does this instead:

http://www.namebase.org/kadane.html

And this:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA Hits/Iran_CIAHits.html

And this:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA Hits/Zaire_CIAHits.html

And this:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

And plenty more besides.

In 1982 an assassination attempt was made against Saddam from the town on Dujail. Saddam sent forces to attack the town, 137 were killed on the spot execution style, including children. 1,500 were imprisoned and possibly tortured. A quarter of a million (250,000) of their farmland was utterly destroyed, their livelihood.

Someone attacked Halabja with nerve gas.

Does our government do things like this?

Of course not. We pay others to do it for us:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=cambodia&startpos=0#cambodia_662

Or, well, sometimes we do it ourselves (for seemingly pettier reasons):

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/5401680?source=Evening Standard

And sometimes we just cheerlead and send a little money:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB104/index.htm

And there's plenty more.

Like Cindy Sheehan support of Hugo Chávez, the leader of Venezuela simply because of his opposition to the US government. Never mind his support for Castro, nor the prison sentence you receive for any government criticism in the press.

She is so blinded by the partisan hate for Bush that she'll ally herself with a greater evil. Like saying Saddam wasn't so bad to discredit Bush? Allying with the devil to expose the liar. Good luck.

Do you not see how that argument is circular? You tacitly assume that Saddam was bad in your premises; this makes it easy for you to prove as much in your conclusions.

Then it would also be obvious to these moronic dolts that if we were not in the country it would be hard to count the deaths resulting from the former Iraqi government. So these moronic dolts can see how there can be 5,000 actual found bodies, evidence confirming 400,000 deaths, and estimates at nearly a million deaths caused by the former Iraqi government.

I've seen nothing that confirms 400,000 deaths (this is what happens when someone discredits something), much less a million. If you're going to be hard-line about it, then the fact is we've counted 5,000 of Saddam's bodies and at least 22,000 of ours.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I wouldn't. But I wouldn't remove him the way we did, especially given the consequences, I certainly wouldn't have started with him, and I wouldn't have what's replaced him (or the people that brought this about) remain in power either.

And we're not that different, except I believe that 1 out of 4 is better (or in my opinion at least 2 out of 4) than 0 out of 4.

ashurbanipal said:
So why is a corrupt democracy better than a corrupt dictatorship?

A corrupted democracy takes the power away from he people and oppresses them, and is therefore not a democracy anymore. So democracies in of themselves are positive, while what they can turn into is not. All we have to do is make sure they stay democracies (or constitutional democratic republics, which have worked best historically).

ashurbanipal said:
This ignores that democracies can give birth to dictatorships. So if that's the case, it seems to me that democracy is not necessarily any better than other forms of government. Your point has been that in actual point of fact, democracy is usually better than a totalitarianism. But in this instance, because the evidence is so overwhelming that in this instance it isn't, you need to argue that there's some inherent and ineffable good in a democracy. I doubt very much that there is.

Exactly, democracies can be corrupted into dictatorships, so all we need to do is make sure that they stay democracies, and when they get corrupted to move them back.

Saying that we shouldn't set up democracies is like saying we should stop trying because we'll just fall down again. We fall, why not get up?

ashurbanipal said:
I take this statement to really mean: "Only a strong and unreasonable partisan hate of the right would make someone think that our government is no better than the one run by Saddam Hussein." Feel free to correct that assumption, but if that's what you mean, then I can prove it false, and rigorously so, if you'll answer the below question honestly:

Suppose (hypothetically) that Bush gets some air time to address the nation tonight. Everyone tunes in to listen to what he's got to say, and here it is:

"My fellow Americans, good evening. Tonight, I have some grave news to share with you. My patience with Europe has run out. As we speak, all of Europe is burning as our nuclear warheads explode across the entire continent. We've got satellite images of city after city being incinerated in unexpected glowing fireballs. I'm not even going to debate with anyone whether it was the right thing to do. I'm the president, and if I decide to murder a billion people, it's my decision.

Additionally, I would like to reveal that I have ordered our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to indiscriminately kill all native inhabitants of those countries without pity or remorse. Again, the matter isn't open to debate; I don't care what anyone thinks of my actions.

Finally, I have decided to imprison everyone in this country that disagrees with me. So, as we speak, all registered democrats and other known liberals are being rounded up and taken to secure facilities which we have been building for the last four years. Anyone who resists will be shot. Thank you, and good evening."

Now, I realize this is an unrealistic scenario (well, one hopes...). But suppose that this really did happen, and then you looked outside and indeed saw national guard troops gathering people up and brutally shooting anyone who resists. You get on the internet and see Europe completely ablaze on Nasa's satellite imaging website. On CNN, Anderson Cooper is talking about how our troops seem to be going crazy, just killing everyone in sight. If that really did happen, what would you think of Bush? what would you think of our government?

How does this hypothetical situation prove that Bush is as bad as Saddam?

ashurbanipal said:
http://www.namebase.org/kadane.html

Shouldn't have happened.

ashurbanipal said:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CI...n_CIAHits.html

We have a lot of hindsight to look at this situation. Some unforeseeable events, and some stupid (in retrospect and otherwise) decisions.

ashurbanipal said:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CI...e_CIAHits.html ...

The same.

We might have two different philosophies. I would rather fix these problems in our government, and if other governments become corrupt fix them. You don't want ours or other countries problems fix?

ashurbanipal said:
Do you not see how that argument is circular? You tacitly assume that Saddam was bad in your premises; this makes it easy for you to prove as much in your conclusions.

Tell me this, which government do you think is worse, the former Iraqi government or our current government?

ashurbanipal said:
I've seen nothing that confirms 400,000 deaths (this is what happens when someone discredits something), much less a million. If you're going to be hard-line about it, then the fact is we've counted 5,000 of Saddam's bodies and at least 22,000 of ours.

I've looked all over and it's thrown a lot of the numbers into doubt. The 400,000 was a Tony Blair statement (which you stated, but I didn't follow up on) and there is no other source. Meaning it probably is a random number.

But The Observer:
At the heart of the questions are the numbers so far identified in Iraq's graves. Of 270 suspected grave sites identified in the last year, 55 have now been examined, revealing, according to the best estimates that The Observer has been able to obtain, around 5,000 bodies. Forensic examination of grave sites has been hampered by lack of security in Iraq, amid widespread complaints by human rights organisations that until recently the graves have not been secured and protected.

"Forensic examination of grave sites has been hampered by lack of security in Iraq," and "the graves have not been secured and protected." If there is actual evidence for 5,000 but how many were there?

The HRW put out a number 250,000 detained or killed (not just killed), maybe only around 5,000 to 10,000 were actually killed (I don't know). There seemed to be a lot more imprisonment than I had though, and less killing. This story (http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2003/iraqmassgraves.htm) where I got the number tells a story of a man and how he was affected by the regime. He is only one man, but still things like that shouldn't happen.

Things like this (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm) shouldn't happen, even if they don't kill that many people and estimates are overblown, it's still brutal and should be stopped.
 
Last edited:
Demosthenes,

Sorry to have taken so long to respond. I thought I had posted to this thread a couple days ago and came back to check on it, only to discover that apparently I was mistaken (either that or my post was lost). So, I apologize for the delay.

And we're not that different, except I believe that 1 out of 4 is better (or in my opinion at least 2 out of 4) than 0 out of 4.

Again, I don't know that it's that simple. You're trying to assign numbers to something that's more complex than mere arithmetic can account for.

A corrupted democracy takes the power away from he people and oppresses them, and is therefore not a democracy anymore. So democracies in of themselves are positive, while what they can turn into is not. All we have to do is make sure they stay democracies (or constitutional democratic republics, which have worked best historically).

Then, since you want to use that definition, I would assert that what we have in Iraq is not a democracy.

Saying that we shouldn't set up democracies is like saying we should stop trying because we'll just fall down again. We fall, why not get up?

No, I don't mean to suggest that. I'm saying we were never really aiming to set up a democracy to begin with. So we didn't "fall down," in any meaningful sense, unless you want to conceive of it as if that was our aim.

How does this hypothetical situation prove that Bush is as bad as Saddam?

It doesn't, and wasn't intended to. You said that only a strong partisan hatred of the right (i.e. an unreasonable bias against the right) would lead me to express the points of view I expressed. I asserted that if you'd answer that question honestly, I could show that this is not correct. So, the question stands--if Bush were to come on T.V. tonight and say that, and those things happened, what would you think of Bush?

We might have two different philosophies. I would rather fix these problems in our government, and if other governments become corrupt fix them. You don't want ours or other countries problems fix?

You bet I want them fixed. But I don't know how much plainer I can be here--what we're doing in Iraq isn't fixing anything. We're not there to fix anything, and nothing we've done will do anything to fix anyone's problems even incidentally. In light of that, our actions there are indefensible.

Tell me this, which government do you think is worse, the former Iraqi government or our current government?

Depends on what you mean by "worse." Worse in what way?

I would say that on most measures, if all the facts were to be known, ours is worse by a great reach.

I've looked all over and it's thrown a lot of the numbers into doubt. The 400,000 was a Tony Blair statement (which you stated, but I didn't follow up on) and there is no other source. Meaning it probably is a random number.

Now it appears you understand my point, at least somewhat. As I've said, I would believe up to, say, 200,000 dead bodies in those graves, though I also am fairly sure that only about 10-20% of those are going to be due to the sort of genocidal activity that often gets pinned on Saddam Hussein. It's worth pointing out that he's currently on trial for only 157(?) deaths, not hundreds of thousands (or even the 5000 so far actually recovered), because it seems like most of those bodies so far found were not his handiwork. They're the result of the Iran-Iraq war, U.S. bombing, etc.

But should he have done the things he actually did do? No, of course not, and I don't want to belittle the suffering he did actually cause. He's a bad man.

But are we doing any better? I think not--we've replaced the Devil with another Devil. That's just not defensible.

As to what we should actually do, I think the first thing that needs to happen, as strange as this sounds, is change the way money works. What ultimately has motivated much of our malfeasance and malice throughout the world has been money. Change how money can be made, and the world will be a much better place.

And this brings us back to oil. We used to have a gold-standard. Now we have an unrealized oil-standard. As bad as I think peak oil is going to be, on the other side of it (assuming we survive, which I think we will) may be a better time for mankind. I don't know, but that's my hope.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Again, I don't know that it's that simple. You're trying to assign numbers to something that's more complex than mere arithmetic can account for.

I believe that the result was more desirable than inaction.

ashurbanipal said:
Then, since you want to use that definition, I would assert that what we have in Iraq is not a democracy.

Not in it's strictest definition, no. But they do now have a constitutional democratic republic of sorts, which, if it isn't perfect, is better than a totalitarian government.

ashurbanipal said:
No, I don't mean to suggest that. I'm saying we were never really aiming to set up a democracy to begin with. So we didn't "fall down," in any meaningful sense, unless you want to conceive of it as if that was our aim.

It's what we did in the end anyway. Using pure consequential ism, it worked out.

ashurbanipal said:
It doesn't, and wasn't intended to. You said that only a strong partisan hatred of the right (i.e. an unreasonable bias against the right) would lead me to express the points of view I expressed. I asserted that if you'd answer that question honestly, I could show that this is not correct. So, the question stands--if Bush were to come on T.V. tonight and say that, and those things happened, what would you think of Bush?

Oh, it's a lot like what I quoted earlier (post #134, page 14).

In which case we should organize some kind of citizen insurrection, and if that is not possible contact other world powers to come help, which I hope they would.

ashurbanipal said:
You bet I want them fixed. But I don't know how much plainer I can be here--what we're doing in Iraq isn't fixing anything. We're not there to fix anything, and nothing we've done will do anything to fix anyone's problems even incidentally. In light of that, our actions there are indefensible.

Totalitarian government replaced with constitutional democratic republic, good.

ashurbanipal said:
I would say that on most measures, if all the facts were to be known, ours is worse by a great reach.

I can:

-Protest without peril to my life
-Criticize the government without punishment
-Actually become part of the government through election
-Join any party/organization that opposes the current government
-Enjoy the fact that transfer of government power between political opponents happens though election and happens peacefully
-Subscribe to a religion different from the leader of the government
-Go throughout my life without concern for my life

Iraqis under the former Iraqi government could not.

It's not perfect, but it's better than many alternatives.

ashurbanipal said:
But are we doing any better? I think not--we've replaced the Devil with another Devil. That's just not defensible.

How is the new government a "devil"? How isn't it working that won't be fixed over the next years of trial and error?
 
I believe that the result was more desirable than inaction.

And I believe that it was not.

Not in it's strictest definition, no. But they do now have a constitutional democratic republic of sorts, which, if it isn't perfect, is better than a totalitarian government.

Well, we're back to this again. I don't know that a democracy is necessarily better than a totalitarian government. It may be, or it may not be. You have to judge each case on its own merits. In this instance, the government there is ineffectual thanks to our occupation. If we leave, there won't be civil war so much as something of a slaughter of Sunnis and a subsequent annexation of Iraq by Iran.

It's what we did in the end anyway. Using pure consequential ism, it worked out.

No, we did not set up a democracy. The people who voted didn't even know who they were voting for. There was evidence of some widespread vote fraud to try to suppress both the Shiite and Sunni vote.

In which case we should organize some kind of citizen insurrection, and if that is not possible contact other world powers to come help, which I hope they would.

Well, it follows then that if I think there's good reason to believe that Bush has done those things, or similar bad things of equal moral weight, it's not merely partisan hatred of the right that drives my opinion of politics in this country. Do you understand the point I'm making here? If I hadn't cited any reason to think what I think, you'd be justified in calling me partisan. But if I cite reasons, then it's not necessarily partisanism. For the record, I'm not registered Democrat or Republican. And I think Bill Clinton was a mediocre president (though he was rather better than Bush).

Totalitarian government replaced with constitutional democratic republic, good.

If the totalitarian government was beneficent, whereas the republic is malevolent, I disagree. Not that this is necessarily the case; the real power there is balanced between the insurgents and the military.

-Protest without peril to my life

Depends on what you protest and how, as it did in Hussein's Iraq.

-Criticize the government without punishment

Not true. I know several people personally whose lives were ruined for writing anti-government letters to the editor to a local newspaper. I've known of people who were "disappeared." Etc. Etc.

-Actually become part of the government through election

Try to make it past Alderman without making a few dirty deals.

-Join any party/organization that opposes the current government

Not entirely without fear of repercussion proportional to your effectiveness.

-Enjoy the fact that transfer of government power between political opponents happens though election and happens peacefully

Peacefully yes. Through election, no. I think there's good evidence that there was vote fraud on a significant scale over the last two elections.

-Subscribe to a religion different from the leader of the government

This, thankfully, is still true. But there were Christians, Jews, and Buddhists in Hussein's Iraq that were relatively unmolested.

-Go throughout my life without concern for my life

Try actually doing any of those things above with any conviction, and I think you'll find your perspective changed somewhat.

How is the new government a "devil"? How isn't it working that won't be fixed over the next years of trial and error?

The government may not be a devil per se, though they're shutting the Sunnis out and showing early signs that the ultimate goal might be to exile or exterminate them. The devil I was referring to, however, was our occupation and the predictable insurgency.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Well, we're back to this again. I don't know that a democracy is necessarily better than a totalitarian government. It may be, or it may not be. You have to judge each case on its own merits. In this instance, the government there is ineffectual thanks to our occupation. If we leave, there won't be civil war so much as something of a slaughter of Sunnis and a subsequent annexation of Iraq by Iran.

In the modern world democracy/republican based nations have industrialized, flourished, and done well. The opposite, totalitarian nation, degrade into fascism and violate human rights.

ashurbanipal said:
No, we did not set up a democracy. The people who voted didn't even know who they were voting for. There was evidence of some widespread vote fraud to try to suppress both the Shiite and Sunni vote.

Where is this evidence?

ashurbanipal said:
Well, it follows then that if I think there's good reason to believe that Bush has done those things, or similar bad things of equal moral weight, it's not merely partisan hatred of the right that drives my opinion of politics in this country. Do you understand the point I'm making here? If I hadn't cited any reason to think what I think, you'd be justified in calling me partisan. But if I cite reasons, then it's not necessarily partisanism. For the record, I'm not registered Democrat or Republican. And I think Bill Clinton was a mediocre president (though he was rather better than Bush).

He's done similar things? Like what?

ashurbanipal said:
Depends on what you protest and how, as it did in Hussein's Iraq.

I can do so peacefully, and the press is allowed to cover it, making protest useful.

ashurbanipal said:
Not true. I know several people personally whose lives were ruined for writing anti-government letters to the editor to a local newspaper. I've known of people who were "disappeared." Etc. Etc.

Who disappeared? When did this happen?

ashurbanipal said:
Peacefully yes. Through election, no. I think there's good evidence that there was vote fraud on a significant scale over the last two elections.

I would much like to know what evidence this is.
 
Alternatives to oil are absolutely necessary, and taking control of oil resources is not an answer. It is just wasting time. Clinton/Gore wanted to set goals for finding alternatives, George Bush just wants to get his hands on all he can. Why not? He will be dead before the big crunch anyways.
 
Dratsaba said:
Alternatives to oil are absolutely necessary, and taking control of oil resources is not an answer. It is just wasting time. Clinton/Gore wanted to set goals for finding alternatives, George Bush just wants to get his hands on all he can. Why not? He will be dead before the big crunch anyways.

"America is addicted to oil" --ironic...
 
Sorry for the late response; I've been involved in other rather time consuming conversations.

In the modern world democracy/republican based nations have industrialized, flourished, and done well. The opposite, totalitarian nation, degrade into fascism and violate human rights.

But this doesn't necessarily mean that democracies are inherently better.

Where is this evidence?

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/2005/10/curious_numbers.php

http://www.aina.org/releases/20050131003708.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese10202005.html

He's done similar things? Like what?

Put through the Homeland Security Bill and the Patriot act, and engaged in a war of conquest.

I can do so peacefully, and the press is allowed to cover it, making protest useful.

This is mostly true.

Who disappeared? When did this happen?

After the Murrah bombing, officer Terry Yeakey was discovered dead under highly unusual circumstances. He was the officer that claimed to have irrefutable evidence of a government conspiracy in the bombing. The film footage (that consituted part of the evidence) he shot of the bombing is now missing, and only his wife provides any testament to its existence.

Or you can look at the various JFK assassination witnesses who died under mysterious circumstances. Or you can remember Fred Hampton or Kenneth Trentadue. Or you can look at these:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/hall/contra1.html

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511762005?open&of=ENG-344

http://newsmine.org/archive/coldwar-imperialism/chile/cia-murder-journalist.txt

http://www.connix.com/~harry/secret1.htm

http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/Feds/ci-chomsky.html

http://www.assassinationscience.com/American_Assassination.html

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/duffey2.html

And I could find more if you want, but realize that the purpose of a political disappearance/ assassination is often to kill while making it appear to be an accident. If we know that various government agencies do these sorts of things, it's unreasonable to assume that the ones we find out about are the only ones that happen.

I would much like to know what evidence this is.

These seem to sum up the case pretty well.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml
 
Need I put anything here anymore :P said:
But this doesn't necessarily mean that democracies are inherently better.

But it does mean that they work.


Stuff we should fix.

Put through the Homeland Security Bill and the Patriot act, and engaged in a war of conquest.

True, except "war of conquest." Bad politics doesn't equate a dictatorship.

After the Murrah bombing, officer Terry Yeakey was discovered dead under highly unusual circumstances. He was the officer that claimed to have irrefutable evidence of a government conspiracy in the bombing. The film footage (that consituted part of the evidence) he shot of the bombing is now missing, and only his wife provides any testament to its existence.

Or you can look at the various JFK assassination witnesses who died under mysterious circumstances. Or you can remember Fred Hampton or Kenneth Trentadue. Or you can look at these:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/hall/contra1.html

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...pen&of=ENG-344

http://newsmine.org/archive/coldwar-...journalist.txt

http://www.connix.com/~harry/secret1.htm

http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/Feds/ci-chomsky.html

http://www.assassinationscience.com/...ssination.html

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/duffey2.html

And I could find more if you want, but realize that the purpose of a political disappearance/ assassination is often to kill while making it appear to be an accident. If we know that various government agencies do these sorts of things, it's unreasonable to assume that the ones we find out about are the only ones that happen.

Allowing for a fair amount of Conspiracy Theory, some of it is probably true. And this should be exposed and fixed.


These things aren't happening to the same extent as they were happening in Iraq before the invasion. It was much more blatant, and obvious, and happened more frequently. We need to fix some stuff, probably bring in a whole administration, but Iraq could not do this by elections.
 
These things aren't happening to the same extent as they were happening in Iraq before the invasion. It was much more blatant, and obvious, and happened more frequently. We need to fix some stuff, probably bring in a whole administration, but Iraq could not do this by elections.

That seems to be a matter of opinion. Al-Jazeera ran a story recently that said exactly the opposite. Now, Al-Jazeera is just as biased as CNN (just the other way), so I'm not putting forward the story as true. But if Al-Jazeera ran it, then it's a good bet that quite a few Iraqis believe it.

True, except "war of conquest." Bad politics doesn't equate a dictatorship.

If we attack a country that is not a direct threat to us, then by definition it's a war of conquest.

Allowing for a fair amount of Conspiracy Theory, some of it is probably true. And this should be exposed and fixed.

If this happens even a little, consider what that means.

But it does mean that they work.

Well, many other forms of Government can make that claim.
 
My thoughts:

1. There has to be a FINITE amount of oil in the world, whether we are reaching that any time soon or not.

2. We HAVE to find an alternative source of energy than oil. The Car industry, for example, is switching/making changes, but it will take a while.

3. We are being $crewed by the limited number of refineries, but the people who are screaming about the gas prices are also saying, "Not in MY backyard" to refineries. Here's an idea - why not build refineries on some of these military bases we keep closing, that way they won't be in anyone's neighberhood?! By the way, over in countries like Qatar, gas is about $.50 - $.60 CENTS a gallon! Don't THAT make you feel good?! :doh

4. Oil doesn't have to run dry to $crew us at the pump! If we go after Iran's Nukes, for example, the world's oil market will be affected, and we will be paying over $3 a gallon for gas! Wouldn't it be nice to not give a rip about oil or gas if something happens to the rest of the world because we are just fine?

5. For all the Nature Fruits who say we shouldn't drill in Alaska because it would hurt the caribou and moose - studies show these animals gather around the pipeline because it is warmer, provides some amount of shelter, etc, and has not killed them off or driven them to the point of extinction as many PETA and other nut cases would have you believe. with today's technology, the footprint in Ak could also be very small. Also, if we wait until we really need it, an 'emergency', then it will be about 2 years AFTER that when we would be able to have oil flowing from up there. That means, we will need to lead-turn this if we are thinking we might need the Oil!

6. You can bet that the oil industry, the guys who just set record profit margins, will fight like freakin' wounded grizzlies to keep the U.S. from freeing itself from the dependency of oil, greasing the pockets of every politician who have hands in which they can place money!
 
ashurbanipal said:
If we attack a country that is not a direct threat to us, then by definition it's a war of conquest.

Conquest is one nation is invading to take over another, not when they invade to set up a new government. Maybe the true motivation was to open up a new market. I'm a consequentialist, if it took out the old government without great negative consequences then it was worth it.

ashurbanipal said:
If this happens even a little, consider what that means.

Massive reform of the government? Agreed. On this point we do not disagree.

ashurbanipal said:
Well, many other forms of Government can make that claim.

Not as consistently, no.
 
1. There has to be a FINITE amount of oil in the world, whether we are reaching that any time soon or not.

Obviously true. I think we are reaching the peak of production fairly soon (by 2015 at the latest, I would say).

We HAVE to find an alternative source of energy than oil. The Car industry, for example, is switching/making changes, but it will take a while.

Again, obviously true. The problem is that no solution presents itself that does for us even 10% of what oil does.

We are being $crewed by the limited number of refineries

Well, this is the mainstream view and what is being fed to the public by some people in the oil industry. But look a little deeper and you find that there's more than meets the eye. The world is short of light sweet crude, which is what most refineries are tooled to handle. Production of LSC peaked in 2004 and there seems little hope that it will rebound to previous levels. What can still be produced with some slack is heavy sour crude (though this won't be the case for much longer), which requires a longer and more expensive refinement process. No one's got the capacity for it. Furthermore, most oil insiders know that the excess HSC won't hold out for long, so what's the point of building a $200 million refinery when you're only going to recoup $20 million in profits from it?

Additionally, the shortage of refinery capacity isn't that great. If you've watched inventory levels over the last few months, they spiked a little post Katrina, but they've declined since then. We'd need to add maybe another half a million barrels of capacity per day to handle full flow. By comparison, the world uses about 86 million barrels of oil per day.

but the people who are screaming about the gas prices are also saying, "Not in MY backyard" to refineries. Here's an idea - why not build refineries on some of these military bases we keep closing, that way they won't be in anyone's neighberhood?! By the way, over in countries like Qatar, gas is about $.50 - $.60 CENTS a gallon! Don't THAT make you feel good?!

I don't know why any of this is relevant. The price of gas in Europe is twice what we pay in the States. It's simply a result of how good our politicians are at negotiating deals.

Oil doesn't have to run dry to $crew us at the pump! If we go after Iran's Nukes, for example, the world's oil market will be affected, and we will be paying over $3 a gallon for gas! Wouldn't it be nice to not give a rip about oil or gas if something happens to the rest of the world because we are just fine?

Yes, that would be quite nice. If we go after Iran in any meaningful way, I suspect "over $3 a gallon" will be something of an understatement.

For all the Nature Fruits who say we shouldn't drill in Alaska because it would hurt the caribou and moose - studies show these animals gather around the pipeline because it is warmer, provides some amount of shelter, etc, and has not killed them off or driven them to the point of extinction as many PETA and other nut cases would have you believe.

That's really not the argument that is made against drilling in ANWR:

1) The environmental issues come from what else has to be put in place to drill and to place a pipeline. We've done considerably better on this, but there are still inevitable solvent leaks, oil leaks, etc. that contaminate acres of land at a time. And this adds up. Then there's the larger issue to consider, which is that burning fossil fuels is ruining the environment anyway, and the more we concentrate on pumping out the last remaining drops, the more damage we do to the environment and the harder the resulting crash is when it's no longer physically possible to keep pumping.

2) But in any case, ANWR is estimated to hold about a 3 month supply of oil for the world, 1 year for the U.S. By the time it could be brought on line, it might well be irrelevant anyway.

with today's technology, the footprint in Ak could also be very small. Also, if we wait until we really need it, an 'emergency', then it will be about 2 years AFTER that when we would be able to have oil flowing from up there. That means, we will need to lead-turn this if we are thinking we might need the Oil!

It will take longer than that, I'm afraid--6 years at a bare minimum, and that's net losing oil to speed up the process.

You can bet that the oil industry, the guys who just set record profit margins, will fight like freakin' wounded grizzlies to keep the U.S. from freeing itself from the dependency of oil, greasing the pockets of every politician who have hands in which they can place money!

Oh, there's no doubt that this occurs. But there is a popular misconception that the oil majors engineered the recent price increases through market manipulation. But this is quite unlikely, for a couple reasons:

1) The oil majors only control about 20% of all oil on the planet. The rest is state-controlled.

2) Oil is traded in futures on markets very much like the stock market. The two principle markets are the West Texas Intermediary and the Brent in London. Very little oil comparatively is traded at spot price.

3) The volume of money traded in a given day on these two oil markets vastly overshadows the profits made by the oil majors in an entire year. So they just don't have the money available to manipulate the market.

4) Other factors, such as sound reason to believe that production may soon be peaking, are much more plausibly to blame for the price going up. In any case, I think we can expect to see it jump again by this summer. I think the idea of $4 or $5 gas by the middle of 2007 is not unreasonable. By 2010, I would expect roughly $15.00 gas, and by 2015, gas will be free to those who want it.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I don't know why any of this is relevant. The price of gas in Europe is twice what we pay in the States. It's simply a result of how good our politicians are at negotiating deals.

Or rather, because of higher taxes in Europe.
 
-Demosthenes- said:
Or rather, because of higher taxes in Europe.

Speaking of gas tax, I have several thoughts on gas taxes:

Do you ever remember in your states the local goverment increasing the tax on your gas to pay for some bridge or project? notice how that tax never goes away once levied, even after the project has been paid for. Since you are used to the increase and are not complaining anymore,they just keep it in place.

When the oil prices soar, notice how the goverment doesn't suspend the taxes to help lower the price?

My comment on the $.50 vents a gallon of gas in Qatar was just gee-whizz info not meant to make a point. Another gee-whizz bit of info about Qatar is that EVERY citizen of Qatar is a Millionaire due to Oil revenue sharing, much how/like the Alaska revenue sharing program from its oil revenue funds each year!

I noticed last week or so that terrorists tried to blow up a section of the Saudi Oil pipeline - they failed, but the news of the attempt spiked the oil per barrel prices for a short time. So, nothing happened to affect the oil flow, but oil prices jumped anyway?! :doh

The oil companies, as I mentioned, recently posted record profits while people were getting $crewed at the pump. Several Senators talked about setting the pirce of oil/gas at the pump in order to lower the price per gallon by cutting the profit margin for the companies. Their argument, as one told it, was along the line of price gouging, similar to the act/directive the goverment puts into effect in an area immediately after it is hit by some disaster. I am still debating in my mind if i like this. People are dependent on oil - they have to have it, so the oil companies could charge whatever they want for it if they wanted, technically - free market economy, right? Then the other side is how good of an idea is it to allow the federal goverment to have the power to tell private how much they can sell their product for, to define how much is 'enough profit' for privately owned businesses. What are your thoughts on this one?
 
easyt65 said:
Speaking of gas tax, I have several thoughts on gas taxes:

Do you ever remember in your states the local goverment increasing the tax on your gas to pay for some bridge or project? notice how that tax never goes away once levied, even after the project has been paid for. Since you are used to the increase and are not complaining anymore,they just keep it in place.

When the oil prices soar, notice how the goverment doesn't suspend the taxes to help lower the price?

My comment on the $.50 vents a gallon of gas in Qatar was just gee-whizz info not meant to make a point. Another gee-whizz bit of info about Qatar is that EVERY citizen of Qatar is a Millionaire due to Oil revenue sharing, much how/like the Alaska revenue sharing program from its oil revenue funds each year!

I noticed last week or so that terrorists tried to blow up a section of the Saudi Oil pipeline - they failed, but the news of the attempt spiked the oil per barrel prices for a short time. So, nothing happened to affect the oil flow, but oil prices jumped anyway?! :doh

The oil companies, as I mentioned, recently posted record profits while people were getting $crewed at the pump. Several Senators talked about setting the pirce of oil/gas at the pump in order to lower the price per gallon by cutting the profit margin for the companies. Their argument, as one told it, was along the line of price gouging, similar to the act/directive the goverment puts into effect in an area immediately after it is hit by some disaster. I am still debating in my mind if i like this. People are dependent on oil - they have to have it, so the oil companies could charge whatever they want for it if they wanted, technically - free market economy, right? Then the other side is how good of an idea is it to allow the federal goverment to have the power to tell private how much they can sell their product for, to define how much is 'enough profit' for privately owned businesses. What are your thoughts on this one?

Sadly true.
 
How much profit is "enough" for a privately owned business?

What part of privately owned do you not understand? Then there's the term "mind your own business" which means that if you're not part of it you don't get a say in how it's run.

The best way to make sure there's no gas at all is for the government to regulate the business. Worked for Ford. Worked for Carter. Will work for anyone interfering in the market place.

If the government has a desire to reduce the price at the gas pump, the government can cut the taxes. How complicated is that?
 
Back
Top Bottom